The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

Litigation performers ¡¿ litigation performers ¡¿ area ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿

Net City 】 】

Attorney-at-law 】

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The transfer contract concluded on October 7, 201 with respect to the shares in the separate sheet between the defendant of the Gu office and the defendant of the branch office of the office 】 cancellation of the transfer contract concluded on October 7, 201 with respect to the shares in the separate sheet between the defendant and the defendant shall be notified to the △△ Partnership (location: *****, representative member*) that the transfer contract in the

A. The Plaintiff has a tax claim equivalent to KRW 1.1 billion as of October 7, 201 with respect to this ¡¿ (i.e., excess of obligations) 】 (i.e., excess of obligations).

B. This ¡¿ (a) owned the shares of the △△ Partnership (hereinafter referred to as “△△△”) stated in the separate sheet 】 (b) but concluded a share transfer agreement with the Defendant on October 7, 201, and transferred all the said shares to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

○ Plaintiff

This ¡¿ The transfer of shares stated in the attached Form to the defendant 】 The transfer of shares to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff as the creditor.

As ○ Defendant 】 (a) was transferred to take charge of real estate development activities owned by △△△△, the said shares were returned to the Defendant again, and thus, is not a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

In full view of the above evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as witness &&&&&the testimony, the following facts are acknowledged.

○○○○ is a company with all shares of the Defendant and the Defendant’s family members, and owned ** 228-3 large 3311.1 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”).

○ The Defendant tried to develop each real estate of this case through 】 (the representative director of the corporation & & & & the representative director of the corporation) 】 (The above real estate was loaned as security for the development project 】 and the representative members of △△△ and △△△△ were required to stand joint and several sureties.

○ The Defendant, on June 25, 2009, transferred the shares indicated in the separate sheet 】 △△, and appointed as the representative member, since he/she could not perform the joint and several sureties.

○ 이××는 2009. 8. 6. 채무자를 △△로, 채권최고액을 1,690,000,000원으로 하여 이 사건 각 부동산에 근저당권을 설정해 주고, 주식회사 @@@은행으로부터 ○ ○ ○을 대출받았다.

When the development projects for each real estate of this case are successful, the development projects for the real estate of this case 】 】 all equity shares in 3,000,000,000.

○○ This case 】 The loan did not proceed with each real estate development project of this case even after being granted the above loan, and, at the Defendant’s request on September 30, 2009, if the loan is not repaid on or around September 30, 2009, a letter of intent to transfer all the members and all shares of △△△ to the Defendant.

○ The real estate development project did not proceed, which 】 (i) was dismissed from the office of the representative member of △△△ on October 24, 2009, and (ii) transferred the shares in the attached Form to the Defendant on October 7, 201. The above transfer price for the shares in the attached Form ○ was not actually paid during the transfer or acquisition process as above.

According to the above facts of recognition 】 (A) although the shares stated in the attached Form were acquired from the defendant and appointed to the representative member to develop each real estate of this case 】 but the above development project did not proceed, the representative member was dismissed and the above shares were returned to the defendant. Thus, this is to be restored to the original state due to the cancellation of the agreement, so it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to cause harm to the defendant 】 or there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.